Page 44 - MSAM-4-1
P. 44

Materials Science in Additive Manufacturing                             TPMS for perfect sound absorption
































            Figure 18. The NRC of TPMS structures
            Abbreviations: NRC: Noise reduction coefficient; TPMS: Triply periodic minimal surface

            Table 10. Sound absorption characteristics of graded triply   between uniform primitive and GP structures indicates
            periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structures         that the graded design method can enhance the average
                                                               sound absorption coefficient of the primitive structure. The
            Specimen     Thickness,  Frequency   Absorption   λ peak /T
                          T (mm)  at first   at first peak,    enhanced mechanism of graded porous structures with
                                   peak,     α 1               larger pore sizes on the incident wave side is attributed to
                                  f 1  (Hz)                    the impedance-matching effect. Large pores near the sound
            GP-12 mm-Ⅰ      12     4980     0.557    5.81      source facilitate the propagation of acoustic waves into the
            GP-18 mm-Ⅰ      18     3200     0.670    6.03      graded porous structures, resulting in reduced reflection
                                                                                       28
            GP-24 mm-Ⅰ      24     2080     0.846    6.96      and increased acoustic energy.  In contrast, the enhanced
                                                               mechanism of graded porous structure with smaller pore
            GP-30 mm-Ⅰ      30     1660     0.847    6.98      sizes on the incident wave side is attributed to Helmholtz-
            GP-12 mm-Ⅱ      12     5970     0.452    4.85      like resonance,  resembling a Helmholtz resonator
                                                                            18
            GP-18 mm-Ⅱ      18     4450     0.581    4.34      composed of a neck (an aperture in a large surface with
            GP-24 mm-Ⅱ      24     4000     0.758    3.62      low porosity) and a cavity with high porosity.
            GP-30 mm-Ⅱ      30     3520     0.682    3.29        The  ranking  of  the  NRC  of  TPMS  structures
            Multicavity-GP-Ⅰ  30   1970     0.873    5.88      with  multicavity  is  as  follows:  multicavity-
            Multicavity-GP-Ⅱ  30   1200     0.618    9.65      IWP   >   multicavity-GP-Ⅱ  >  multicavity-gyroid
            Abbreviation: GP: Graded primitive.                > multicavity-GP-Ⅰ > multicavity-diamond > multicavity-
                                                               primitive. Multicavity-IWP has the highest NRC
            500 – 6300 Hz for diamond structures is the best among the   (NRC = 0.732) among all the TPMS structures in this study.
            four kinds of uniform TPMS structures, while primitive   Despite the enhanced average sound absorption coefficient
            structures have the lowest average sound absorption   of multicavity-primitive structures, their NRC remains
            coefficient among the uniform TPMS structures. For the   the lowest among the multicavity-TPMS structures
            GP design, the NRC of GP-12 mm-Ⅰ, GP-18 mm-Ⅰ, and   mentioned  above.  To  improve  the  sound  absorption  of
            GP-24 mm-Ⅰ are 0.189, 0.293, and 0.416, respectively; these   primitive structures, the multicavity design was applied to
            values are similar to the NRC of diamond structures with   the primitive structure, leading to NRC of 0.572 and 0.698
            the same thickness. Diamond structures with 85% porosity   for multicavity-GP-Ⅰ and multicavity-GP-Ⅱ, respectively.
            manufactured by stereolithography also demonstrated   Compared with Primitive-30 mm, the multicavity design
            the best sound absorption among diamond, gyroid,   of types Ⅰ and Ⅱ enhanced the noise reduction coefficient
            and primitive structures[16]. The comparison of results   by 72.3% and 110.2%, respectively. Compared with


            Volume 4 Issue 1 (2025)                         17                             doi: 10.36922/msam.5737
   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49